2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvlc.2017.08.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

End-user composition of interactive applications through actionable UI components

Abstract: Developing interactive systems to access and manipulate data is a very tough task. In particular, the development of user interfaces (UIs) is one of the most time-consuming activities in the software lifecycle. This is even more demanding when data have to be retrieved by accessing flexibly different online resources. Indeed, software development is moving more and more toward composite applications that aggregate on the fly specific Web services and APIs. In this article, we present a mashup model that descri… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
9
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
1
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…H1c supported). This result agrees with various findings, such as [11,71]. Such understanding and associations are beyond ordinary people.…”
Section: Discussion and Practical Implications For Service Compositionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…H1c supported). This result agrees with various findings, such as [11,71]. Such understanding and associations are beyond ordinary people.…”
Section: Discussion and Practical Implications For Service Compositionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…After creating the project, the product was hosted on a web server and the URL was given to all participants. We sent an invitation email to the 19 participants and asked them to evaluate the DDKAT directly based on their judgments [65]. In the email, we mentioned all the features of the DDKAT, its usage instructions, the actual product's URL, and the eSURVEY URL for the AttrakDiff questionnaire.…”
Section: B Experimental Executionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…7, in which PQ, HQ-I, HQ-S, and ATT were rated by computing their average scores, as shown on the y-axis. PQ represents the usability of the product and reveals how well users are accomplishing their objectives; HQ-S describes the supporting features of a system, such as its novelty, interesting and stimulating functions, contents, and presentation styles; HQ-I indicates the ability of users to identify with the system; and ATT represents the overall perceived quality of the system [65]. The user assessments of all four dimensions fell between 1 and 2 for the DDKAT, which is in the ''above-average'' region.…”
Section: Expert Evaluationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In the software development industry, the experience of a good user refers to an evaluation of an end user interface that is easy to learn and efficient to use (aesthetics, joy of use, and attractiveness). However, UI design management is highly concerned that developers spend more time designing UI (Desolda, Ardito, Costabile, & Matera, 2017;Kennard & Leaney, 2010). Hays (2014) claims that complex user interfaces can encounter a delayed reaction time and unsatisfied users.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%